In bоth of these cases the petitioner is seeking to recover damages for land taken for a State highway. In the first, the taking was made in 1927, by the county commissioners aсting for the county of Franklin, and in the second, the Commonwealth, acting by its department of public works, made the taking in 1928. In both cases the titles acquired by the takings were in fee simple.
The land in question was formerly owned by a street railway company and used in its business and was purchased by the petitioner from that company by a receivеr’s deed. The land taken by the county was fifty feet in width and three thousand eight hundred feet in length. A portion of it was originally swampy and another part consisted of a hill through which а cut had been made when the railway was constructed in 1902. The material removed from the cut was spread over the swamp to make the street railway roadbed. Other material was brought from other places and made a part of the roadbed. The depth of the fill over the swamp was about four feet and on this fill and through the cut the ties and rails of the street railway company were laid and the ties were on the roadbed throughout its length at the time of the taking. The evidence as to thе amount and kind of material removed from the cut and placed in the swamp was admissible in the discretion of the judge as a part of the description of the land at the time of the taking, and the exception to the admission of this evidence must be overruled. The petitioner, having testified to facts tending to prove his qualificatiоns as an expert on land, earth, excavation and fill values and having testified that the land taken by the county had no market value, was permitted, subject to the exception of the county, to give his opinion that the real value of the land was $5,000; that the elements which he took into consideration in determining this value were the fill and price per yard of the fill at the time of the taking. The witness was then permitted to testify, subject to the
The land taken by the Commonwealth consisted of several parcels adjаcent to a State highway location at the time of the taking, and the record states that most of this land had a market value, concerning which evidence was intrоduced. At a point in one of the parcels taken by the Commonwealth the street railway tracks had been located on a hill, and for a distance of several hundred feet a fill of approximately sixteen feet at its greatest depth had been constructed; under this fill the street railway company had laid an iron pipe for the purpose of conducting water from one side of its location to the other. The testimony as to the nature of this property including that relating to the iron pipe and its use was admissible, in the discretion of the judge, as a part of the description of what was taken, and the exception thereto must be overruled. For a similar reason, the admission of testimony as to the number of cubic yards of gravel and other material used to make the fill and there at the time of the taking cannot be said to be reversible error. The petitioner testified that the portion of this land where the fill was made had a value but no market value. He was then permittеd to give his opinion as to its value and to state, subject to the exception of the Commonwealth, that his valuation was approximately on the same cоmputation of values of fill as in the case against the county. Evidence of the replacement value of the fill at the time of taking was also introduced by other witnesses subject to the respondent’s exception. In cross-examination of a witness called by the respondent, the petitioner brought out the fact that the highwаy built was simply an enlargement of the roadbed of the street railway company with the fill left substantially as it was at the time of the taking. When the testimony to which exceptiоns were saved was being introduced the trial judge said to the jury: “There is some evidence going in here at the present time relative to the cubic yard cost of this fill, and I аm going to instruct you, that relative to that evidence, in estimating the loss to the petitioner, these
In Smith v. Commonwealth,
In each case the entry must be
Exceptions sustained.